Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-03-30
The Amendment.

The State has had an interview with
Judge John T. Harris, sometimesknown
as ga Readjuster in the cool" In that
interview, among other things, he says
of the proposition to amend the Con
stitution by limiting the time within
which bondholder can fund 81 do
not think it a debatable question.
Aside from the principle involved every
lawyer knows the Supreme Court and
all the courts which have acted on the
subject have held that State can no
more. repudiate by constitutional
amendment than by Legislative act. }"
And he argues that "after the princi-
pal became due, in 1905, legislature
could levy for its payment and no power
could stop them"
Then he rests his objection upon the
fact that after all the bondholders have
done to defraud, ruin. and degrade the
people of Virginia, after they will have
been fighting them for eighteen years,
q legislature can be found at the end
of that time, or somewhere between
now and then, to renew tax OF $780,
204, 900 Tor $50, 900, 565.9i il all the
equities prevaiD upon an outraged and
exasperated people.
What does experience say to this
The Riddleberger bill, passed Febru-
airy IA, 1889, decides that certain sums
shall be subtracted from all the bonds
Of the State, and that the remainder
should only be paid in Riddleberger 3
per cents. Outside OF the consol and
l0-40 (tax-receivable coupon) bonds
the amount, principal and interest, to
July !, 1882, that has been scaled under
this law from the peelers-old unfund-
ed and literary-fund bonds (aggrega-
ting 81, 531, 243. 76)-is 1892, 70498.
Not suit has been brought in the
Federal courts to invalidate this por-
ton of the Riddleberger settlement.
Why not, ifJudge Harriss law is good?
How is it with other States q? Since
the war eleven Of them have repudiated
such part of their debts as they chose.
Which OF them, acting through its
Legislature, has made such levy to
pay any part of its rejected debt ?
Against which of them has judgment
been obtained by the Federal court for
violating the Constitution by passing a
law impairing the obligation of con-
tracts =? How could such judgment be
got; and if got, how enforced against
state or its Legislature Z? Suppose the
legislatures should refuse to levy, how
can the Federal court compel them to
do il? cit is true" says the majority
of the court in Poindexter as. Green
how, ia United States Reports, page
$50, "that no remedy for breach OF
contract by State = I" by means Of
process to compel its performance, is
open under the Constitution in the
courts Of the United States by direct
suit against the State itself, on the
part of the injured party being citizen
of another State, or citizen or subject
of q foreign State"
1.-THE Constitution" says the mi
nority of the same court, Ola United
States Reports, page 1881 "still de-
clares that no State shall pass any law
impairing the obligation of contract;
but the effect OF the amendment
eleventh amendment) is that even if
a State should pass law impairing the
validity of its own contract, no redress
can be had for the enforcement thereof
against the State in the Federal
courts" And as no cause Of action
can arise under our proposed amend
ment until 1905, it is to be hoped that
by then time will have purged the Su-
preme Court of its dross and given it
men who will not evade the eleventh
amendment. by technical device, as
the ADLER and more respectable part Of
the present court says has been done
by Mr.. Justice Mathews and his con-
irircs in declaring that, though the
State cannot be sued, its administrative
end executive officers may. Though
whether it shall be purged or not will
be immaterial to us, so far as the mat
ter in hand goes, for the court cannot
get hold of the amendment under the
Acts Of 1871 and 1879, which acts, it
now claims, give it jurisdiction.
Judge Harris says this issue cannot
be reached until 1905. AS matter of
law, yes as a matter of fact, it will be
reached at once. When the principal
Of the bond is discredited it is, as has
been lately explained, of no use as a
collateral and as an inyestment-the
only other purpose to which it can be
applied--it is reduced from a valid bond
at par to per cent. annuity running
10 190j-the date OF maturity of the
bonds, say eighteen years. The value
of per cent. annuity for eighteen
years is ascertained to be 64.97 as COM
pared with the valid bond, which is a
perpetual annuity, worth 100. The loss
thus inflicted on the bondholder is 35.03
per cent. and he knows it. The wisest
thing to be done is to pass the consti-
tutionsl amendment and give the bond
holder the option of funding or forfeit
ing the principal of his bond. He
knows which side of his bread is but
tered. EARNEST.